9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al in 1990. A notice of hearing dated 2-9-2004 was served by dak as well as by affixation under rule 14(c) of Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 2000 with the help of the respondent. Against this service of notice a letter dated 25-10-2004 was received on 1-11-2004 from Smt. N. Pitchaimuthu widow of late Shri S. Nepolean stating that the appellant died on 19-1-1998 leaving behind her as widow and legal heir. It is further requested that she is unable to represent personally or through advocate and the appeal may be disposed off as per records releasing the locked amount to her being old widow in very bad financial condition having no money even for medical treatment. The letter is accompanied by a photo copy of the death certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt as to why adjudication proceedings should not be held against him for the reasons he failed to surrender Singapore $500 (which was recovered and seized from search of deceased appellant s premises) after his return from Malaysia without any general or special permission from RBI in contravention of the provisions of section 8(1) of FERA, 1973. In reply, the appellant stated that Indian currency was received otherwise than banking channels because of urgency of situation and Singapore $500 was not encashed immediately on arrival from Malaysia to India because of his forgetfulness. It was pleaded that adjudication proceedings should not be held and Singapore $ 500 may be released for encashment to the appellant. Not agreeing adjudication p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to this acquisition, hence, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 500 is maintained against this account. 6. For the reasons stated herein above the amount of penalty of Rs. 500 against contravention of section 8(1) is maintained and sustained. Simultaneously, arrival of guilt against contravention of section 9(1)(b) of FERA, 1973 is also sustained and maintained but the amount of penalty is reduced to Rs. 25,000. In this position and on both accounts the total amount of penalty comes to Rs. 25,500 against the appellant. However, the saving bank account discussed in the impugned order is hereby released which the appellant was permitted to utilise by impugned order. The appellant may deposit the amount of penalty of Rs. 25,500 within 45 days fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
